Mr. Kim,

I will keep this simple.

I have already stated my public opinion to anyone who cares that there's nothing illegal with the "safety placard"...except that it advertises the UTCC.

You attack the Chicago Dispatcher for what you perceive to be slights. How hypocritical.

Aren't you the guy who said you are going to continue to disrespect me and treat me like a dog?

Why? For making a "bunch of questions...with serious approaching" about you and the UTCC?

I understand that Mr. Pankaj Kapoor, whose real estate dealings and conflicted relationship with the UTCC I questioned here in this discussion forum, is no longer part of the "steering committee".

Am I wrong?

The only tragedy here is what outside influences like the American Friends Service Committee have done to natural organizing by propping up unpopular people like you and Peter Enger.

The same goes for Donald Nathan keeping Wolf Weiss and the CPTDA "relevant" with a lawsuit so close to being frivolous it speaks French.

Can't you get 26 people to endorse you and your efforts? Or are you afraid of letting Chicago cabdrivers decide for themselves who should represent them, the agenda, and what should be done?

By the way, which one of the "UTCC" told the Sun-Times that you guys have 1000 members?

Why do think the City of Chicago is so unimpressed with your "requests" or "demands"?

Maybe because the UTCC is a "paper tiger"...without even "paper teeth"?

I'm sorry if any of this gets lost in translation, but it is not the duty of the press to simply say what you want them to say, or even to ask just what you want answered.

It seems that you think otherwise.

However the Chicago Dispatcher ignores what you think is "newsworthy" about the UTCC, it is pathetic to constantly blame your failures at organizing effectively on someone ignoring you, not to mention honestly criticizing.

Accept this, Mr. Kim: Mr. Lutfallah has helped Chicago cabdrivers much more with the Chicago Dispatcher than the UTCC has with their bumper sticker and "newsletter". Much more than UTCC's master, the AFSC, which has 42 million dollars to spend. Much more than its racist puppeteer Prateek Sampat.

We already know what the problem is, Mr. Kim. The UTCC prints a bumper sticker with its name on it, which would be 100% legal and just as effective without it.

That makes it advertising for the UTCC.

Everything else about anyone else is just distracting from this fact.

You want attention for yourself (I mean, the "UTCC") and you want to feel or be perceived as bigger or more important or selfless than you really are and you try to portray Ms. Reyes or Mr. Lutfallah as your powerful enemies so you can explain why you must be so weak.

I don't care how many "bond cards" the UTCC plans to "give" me. I ain't buying this bull of yours at any price.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Before outraged cabdrivers take action after City of Chicago inexplicably rejects “Driver Safety Placard” proposal, UTCC has been proposed this safety placard which does not have any of UTCC information such as UTCC name and contact during the 3 months. However, because three months had passed since the presentation of the proposal with no response from DCS, UTCC decided to print the safety placard with UTCC money.

UTCC made 2000 copies of safety placard. Some one asks me why UTCC do not distribute to every taxi. This is the answer for why.

1) UTCC want still DCS should take this safety placard instead of UTCC. And we UTCC are still negotiating with DCS whenever we have a meeting with them.
2) Officially UTCC does not have a money to distribute the safety placard all of Taxi Industry.
However, UTCC also consider making it more if it will be faced on two conditions as below;
- DCS still does not accept to make the safety placard.
- Taxi Driver wants to have it more.

I think the most taxi driver have a knowledge for the law as ‘battery of an on-duty taxi driver is a class 3 felony, punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment’ by act no 720ILCS 5/12-4,730 ILCS5/5-8-1.
However, also most taxi driver does not know their right to have ‘public conveyance notice’ such as safety placard, which UTCC made. Therefore, I would like to inform you first the right to have ‘public conveyance notice’ in the taxi.

In the act no 625 ILCS 50/ public conveyance notice act, the law is clear as “ A notice shall be prominently displayed in each vehicle or conveyance used for the transportation of the public for hire which must state substantiality the following: Any person who assaults or harms an individual whom he knows to be a driver, operator, employee or passenger of a transportation facility or system engaged in the business of transportation for hire and who is then performing in such capacity or using such public transportation as a passenger, if such individual is assaulted, commits a Class A misdemeanor, or if such individual is harmed, commits a Class 3 felony.
Someone who read the article until this line may have a question as like ‘why Safety Placard has UTCC information? This is an advertisement of UTCC, it’s not safety issue’
As you know this question issued by Commissioner of DCS, and it was made the news by Dispatcher without any interview to UTCC member who are rallying in front of DCS.

I would like to ask you all of taxi driver for this matter, and please make the answer by yourselves. Because if you make an answer for the followings, I believe you will get what is right and wrong.

Questions.
1. If Commissioner of DCS have an interview for this safety placard issue with Chicago Tribune, will she say same as Dispatcher’s interview to Chicago Tribune?
2. If your answer would be ‘No’ for the above question 1, why she say to Dispatcher like that? Do you know the reason why it would be different contents for interview between Dispatcher and Chicago Tribune?
3. When Mr. Jonathan Bullington had an interview for this safety placard issue with Commissioner, does he know the law (625 ILCS 50) is clear as mentioned above?
4. If your answer would be ‘Yes’ for the above question 3, why he did not make an issue in his news article as law is clear like that?
5. If your answer would be ‘No’ for the above question 3, why he wrote the news without any knowledge for the law?

Here is my answer for the above questions: Definitely the commissioner did not say to Chicago Tribune such like ‘this is advertisement of UTCC’. If she said like that, the news reporter of Chicago Tribune will make the bunch of questions to her with serious approaching. (Chicago Tribune has the interview with Peter almost 45 minutes. Dispatcher didn’t with anyone of UTCC)

However, why she have to care about her interview with Dispatcher? What if Mr. Jonathan Bullington has a higher level like Chicago Tribune’s news reporter?

Unfortunately, all of taxi driver has been treated as much as Dispatcher’s level from City of Chicago. This is one of our tragedies in Taxi Industry.

Steve Kim

Mike, Peter Enger encouraged anyone that has an issue with the UTCC name being on the card to just cut it off.


I will also respond to this Mike Foulks excerpt:

"The same goes for Donald Nathan keeping Wolf Weiss and the CPTDA "relevant" with a lawsuit so close to being frivolous it speaks French.

Can't you get 26 people to endorse you and your efforts? Or are you afraid of letting Chicago cabdrivers decide for themselves who should represent them, the agenda, and what should be done?" MD Foulks


The room at some UTCC meetings is filled to capacity. You have stated before in this forum that the CCO meetings could be held in a washroom stall due to the fact no one shows up. The CCO meetings are a meeting of Mike Foulks alone. All someone has to do to become a CCO member is to vote in an election in a restaurant they would be at anyway. It would seem that hardly anyone went our of his/her way to vote for you Mike. Quite possibly the only person that went out of his way to attend was Enger himself. 26 votes would seem to be a very low turnout with at least 74 people at minimum passing the polls without voting. How many customers of the restaurant dined while the polls were open Mike? The current volume of UTCC stickers I see in cabs trumps your own efforts Mike 40 fold. This could be where the 1000 backers statement comes in. Reporters have been known to put a "spin" on things.

As far as the lawsuit goes, these guys are making noise about our plight. I think this was the reason for filing a suit. Sometimes people are given what they want to shut up. It looks to be a tool used to perhaps start a negotiation between the parties. Judges typically encourage the parties to try to work out a solution before trial. My understanding is that the city has made a motion to dismiss. No ruling has been issued at this time. What do you have against the French Mike?

The above statements are my own opinions about the lawsuit, CCO election, UTCC, and reporters.

"Big Fat Mouth",

You wrote: "Mike, Peter Enger encouraged anyone that has an issue with the UTCC name being on the card to just cut it off."

It should never have been printed on the placard in the first place. Anybody's name on the placard makes it advertising. I'm not a lawyer, and even I know that. Who's the lawyer advising UTCC?

You wrote: "The room at some UTCC meetings is filled to capacity."

And others have been poorly attended. Generally, people come to meetings involving Prateek Sampat and never come back.

You wrote: "You have stated before in this forum that the CCO meetings could be held in a washroom stall due to the fact no one shows up."

First, you brought up this concept of meetings being "held in a washroom stall". I admitted that this was possible due to the rules simply stating that they must be held within the city limits of Chicago. Not "due to the fact no one shows up".

You wrote: "The CCO meetings are a meeting of Mike Foulks alone."

This is true half of the time. Again, all cabdrivers who were voted for by the small number of cabdrivers who participated in the CCO elections have been removed due to a lack of participation themselves. I have not appointed any replacements, though I could.

You wrote: "All someone has to do to become a CCO member is to vote in an election in a restaurant they would be at anyway."

Again, you are twisting the truth. All you have to do to become a CCO member is register (if you are a current Chicago cabdriver, that is); voting isn't required. Nor is being in a restaurant, or whether you would be there anyway or not.

You wrote: "It would seem that hardly anyone went our of his/her way to vote for you Mike."

It seems to me that 40 people did the first time and 26 the second time. Combined, about 100 cabdrivers voted, about 50 each time, some who are repeat voters.

You wrote: "Quite possibly the only person that went out of his way to attend was Enger himself."

This is simply not true. What Mr. Enger failed to do was show up at the end of the night to "monitor" the counting of the ballots. It seems he didn't want to accept the reality of the CCO election: Chicago cabdrivers had the opportunity to select the leadership of the CCO and most of them re-elected me.

Nobody voted for Peter Enger. In the first CCO election, a few cabdrivers wrote in the names of Melissa Callahan and Ted Budzynski. Draw your own conclusion.

You wrote: "26 votes would seem to be a very low turnout with at least 74 people at minimum passing the polls without voting."

More than 26 people voted. More than 74 people visited the restaurant that day. The turnout should be much higher if cabdrivers are ever to get effectively democratic representation.

I doubt this will ever happen if outsiders continue to discourage Chicago cabdrivers from participating by telling lies about me and others.

You asked: "How many customers of the restaurant dined while the polls were open Mike?"

I don't know, nor did I care. I was busy running the election. I did not bother anyone who was dining or uninterested in the CCO election. Most people who voted were aware of the CCO election previous to their visit that day.

You wrote: "The current volume of UTCC stickers I see in cabs trumps your own efforts Mike 40 fold."

I don't think this is true. Putting a sticker which warns potential attackers about the consequences for their actions is hardly a vote for the UTCC.

You are suggesting that they wouldn't do the same thing if I replaced the UTCC advertising with "CCO" or nothing at all.

You wrote: "This could be where the 1000 backers statement comes in. Reporters have been known to put a "spin" on things."

It's more probable that someone like you, "Big Fat Mouth", put this kind of "'spin' on things" for the reporter.

You wrote: "As far as the lawsuit goes, these guys are making noise about our plight. I think this was the reason for filing a suit."

This is why I called it "frivolous". If a party doesn't have a legal argument to base their objection on, and is simply "making noise" or trying to get publicity for their "plight"...it is an ABUSE of the LEGAL SYSTEM.

There are other ways to "make noise" for our "plight" other than by filing frivolous lawsuits.

You wrote: "Sometimes people are given what they want to shut up."

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

You wrote: "It looks to be a tool used to perhaps start a negotiation between the parties. Judges typically encourage the parties to try to work out a solution before trial. My understanding is that the city has made a motion to dismiss. No ruling has been issued at this time."

My understanding is that the city isn't negotiating anything and will have its motion to dismiss be granted. Only on the aspect of granting the Commissioner too much power do I think this lawsuit might be successful for cabdrivers.

You asked: "What do you have against the French Mike?"

Not much. Why do you ask?

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Mike, Peter Enger encouraged anyone that has an issue with the UTCC name being on the card to just cut it off.


I will also respond to this Mike Foulks excerpt:

"The same goes for Donald Nathan keeping Wolf Weiss and the CPTDA "relevant" with a lawsuit so close to being frivolous it speaks French.

Can't you get 26 people to endorse you and your efforts? Or are you afraid of letting Chicago cabdrivers decide for themselves who should represent them, the agenda, and what should be done?" MD Foulks


The room at some UTCC meetings is filled to capacity. You have stated before in this forum that the CCO meetings could be held in a washroom stall due to the fact no one shows up. The CCO meetings are a meeting of Mike Foulks alone. All someone has to do to become a CCO member is to vote in an election in a restaurant they would be at anyway. It would seem that hardly anyone went our of his/her way to vote for you Mike. Quite possibly the only person that went out of his way to attend was Enger himself. 26 votes would seem to be a very low turnout with at least 74 people at minimum passing the polls without voting. How many customers of the restaurant dined while the polls were open Mike? The current volume of UTCC stickers I see in cabs trumps your own efforts Mike 40 fold. This could be where the 1000 backers statement comes in. Reporters have been known to put a "spin" on things.

As far as the lawsuit goes, these guys are making noise about our plight. I think this was the reason for filing a suit. Sometimes people are given what they want to shut up. It looks to be a tool used to perhaps start a negotiation between the parties. Judges typically encourage the parties to try to work out a solution before trial. My understanding is that the city has made a motion to dismiss. No ruling has been issued at this time. What do you have against the French Mike?

The above statements are my own opinions about the lawsuit, CCO election, UTCC, and reporters.

This is a better response to someones questions Mike. Your response to Nathan was a poor one as I posted above. Why the change of character Mike? People want a leader with a steady hand, not a hot head.

One thing you're wrong about is the city. They pay millions upon millions each year to settle lawsuits. If one uses common sense one would come to the conclusion that the judge encouraged settlement in these payoffs.

Why would you as a full time driver object to people trying to get us a raise?

"Travis Bickle",

Do you know what you're talking about?

You wrote: "One thing you're wrong about is the city. They pay millions upon millions each year to settle lawsuits."

When have I said otherwise?

You then write: "If one uses common sense one would come to the conclusion that the judge encouraged settlement in these payoffs."

This isn't "common sense", nor do you seem to have it here.

You finally write: "Why would you as a full time driver object to people trying to get us a raise?"

First of all, the lawsuit isn't going to get us a raise.

Second, you shouldn't refer to fare increases as "raises".

Third, I don't object to people trying to get us a fare increase (or get rid of the surcharge concept).

John Henry Assabill, the elected leader of the Ghanaian Cabdriver Association, and myself, the elected leader of the Chicago Cabdriver Organization were THE ONLY TWO TO CLEARLY TESTIFY TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE THAT THEY SHOULD VOTE 'NO' TO THE SURCHARGE AS IT ISN'T AN ADEQUATE "FARE INCREASE".

I don't see the nature of our titles being granted by an open, democratic process as a coincidence.

The "UTCC", however, welcomed the surcharge and thought they could threaten the City Council into giving us a fare increase "in 60 days (or else!)".

That's the kind of political "victory" you get from the Quaker church (AFSC) employing a radical college-aged kid (Prateek Sampat) to prop up and puppet a handful of cabdrivers (UTCC) who couldn't get arrested for "organizing" if their life depended on it.

Can you imagine the headline if all of the cabdrivers who attended the "surcharge" hearing all told the Transportation Committee to take the suggestion that a 50 cents or 1 dollar surcharge and send it back to the Daley Adminstration marked "insufficient funds"?

Nope. Daley and Reyes played us. Thanks to Prateek Sampat and the AFSC, who brought their attention to and hailed this stupid concept of a "gas surcharge" or "temporary surcharge" in the first place.

And the UTCC let the City Council play Chicago cabdrivers for fools.

It's super-ironic that Wolf Weiss of the CPTDA supported the idea for a surcharge, even claiming to be the one(s) who suggested it to Reyes, and now is suing the City about it.

What a joke.

I have consistently tried to re-focus everyone's attention on a simple fare increase, and I get criticized for it.

Well, there you go. Thanks for the bumper sticker, guys.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

This is a better response to someones questions Mike. Your response to Nathan was a poor one as I posted above. Why the change of character Mike? People want a leader with a steady hand, not a hot head.

One thing you're wrong about is the city. They pay millions upon millions each year to settle lawsuits. If one uses common sense one would come to the conclusion that the judge encouraged settlement in these payoffs.

Why would you as a full time driver object to people trying to get us a raise?

This is true half of the time. Again, all cabdrivers who were voted for by the small number of cabdrivers who participated in the CCO elections have been removed due to a lack of participation themselves. I have not appointed any replacements, though I could Mike Foulks.

Would this mean that there are no members of the CCO other than President Mike? George L. take note of the "group" you have supported in the past.

I could appoint Barack and John to my group as well.

"Big Fat Mouth",

It seems you don't want to get this concept:

CCO members aren't required to come to CCO meetings.

Most cabdrivers don't have time to sit around for hours.

They have, and will continue, to regularly elect their representaives to meet with others to discuss and decide what to do, if at all.

In fact, many CCO members and other Chicago cabdrivers have asked me about UTCC, the strike, and other relevant matters as long as I have been in office as the CCO President.

George Lutfallah and Jonathan Bullington are quite aware of just how many and in what fashion Chicago cabdrivers particpated in CCO elections and meetings.

UTCC and other groups involving Prateek Sampat and the American Friends Service Committee have alternately failed to inform or banned Mr. Lutfallah about activities or from meetings.

They then cry foul when Mr. Lutfallah doesn't suddenly agree to be their propaganda machine.

All the while, Mr. Lutfallah, myself, and others have been doing more to help Chicago cabdrivers either as individuals or as a group...independent of outsiders who insist on "helping".

"Big Fat Mouth", you wrote: "I could appoint Barack and John to my group..."

That only proves how baseless your group is. (Who is your group, anyway?)

I can't appoint Barack Obama or John McCain to the CCO as they aren't current Chicago cabdrivers.

A CCO member is a former client of Barack Obama's. Perhaps that might be a useful connection someday.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

This is true half of the time. Again, all cabdrivers who were voted for by the small number of cabdrivers who participated in the CCO elections have been removed due to a lack of participation themselves. I have not appointed any replacements, though I could Mike Foulks.

Would this mean that there are no members of the CCO other than President Mike? George L. take note of the "group" you have supported in the past.

I could appoint Barack and John to my group as well.

I make an exception for special people. A cs# isn't needed from them.

mf,

how appropriate your initials are. what do you know about collective decision making? what do you base your opinions that the utcc shouldn't put their names on a placard they produced? the city does the same thing all the time. do you object to mayor daley posting his name on every piece of city crap produced cause he's 'advertising' himself? or norma reyes on the surcharge placard?

you're just jealous you havent got an org. that can accomplish anything. i wouldn't follow you or george into a bathroom, much less into some harebrained scheme to raise 20,000 from us poor ass drivers to hire a lawyer taht may or may not succeed in getting the right to form a union in 5 years or more and then having to pay more and more money to actually make a union. we need an org. NOW, mf-er!

Pauli, While you are right, please hold down the language. Lets let the low lifes use it, but not us. Mike still hasn't responded to my question if the actual CCO membership was in fact now one member, Prez MD Foulks himself. Mike mentions members yet says he has removed all of the people that were voted in. Does he still count the people that cast ballots as members although none of them come to the meetings? Was Mc Gee the other guy that made the two man march with Mike?

There isn't any twisting going on here. A guy that complains about the subject changing is a guy that might be scared. Perhaps really scared. I am just trying to establish what I believe to be true, that the CCO is just Mike or Mike and this Mc Gee, not scare somebody. If Mike has more members I would like to hear about it. We as concerned drivers have the right to know when a guy claims to represent us in the Tribune. I do have concern with his record as well. I hope the media doesn't get onto this.

Please note that I still haven't gotten any answers as to the actual CCO membership. We never got an actual accounting from the last election months ago. Besides the safety debate, perhaps someone will come forward to run against the Prez this week.

And still no answers While Mike just continues on some meaningless tirade, any thing of importance takes a back seat. For the CCo to be effective it needs a new board and new members. Who is willing to take the job this November?

"pauli" "johal" "mr. hernandez" and "hassan" seem to be the same person...Peter Enger?

Please see the new thread above....

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

mf,

how appropriate your initials are. what do you know about collective decision making? what do you base your opinions that the utcc shouldn't put their names on a placard they produced? the city does the same thing all the time. do you object to mayor daley posting his name on every piece of city crap produced cause he's 'advertising' himself? or norma reyes on the surcharge placard?

you're just jealous you havent got an org. that can accomplish anything. i wouldn't follow you or george into a bathroom, much less into some harebrained scheme to raise 20,000 from us poor ass drivers to hire a lawyer taht may or may not succeed in getting the right to form a union in 5 years or more and then having to pay more and more money to actually make a union. we need an org. NOW, mf-er!

Who cares if they are the same person? What's the difference? The criticism is warranted.